Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did, and How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did
III. How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
IV. Post-Script


I. Introduction

     I have decided to publish this written, expanded version of my 2018 video for YouTube which is entitled ""Stalin Killed More Than Hitler" Borders on Holocaust Denial". That video was written, filmed, and published in October 2018.
     What piqued my interest in this topic was the research which followed the production of my video "Ben Shapiro's 'Socialism is Theft' Ignores WWII, NATO, Corporate Privilege", which can be viewed at the following address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8kQcpvDFIE. In that video, I criticized Ben Shapiro's erroneous attribution of millions of Eastern European deaths to Stalin rather than Hitler. That video can be viewed at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y1Md5zEG8k
     I have decided to publish this written version, because the video ""Stalin Killed More Than Hitler" Borders on Holocaust Denial" has been categorized as "controversial" by YouTube, and risks being taken down. What follows is an expanded version of that eight-minute video which I improvised on October 18th, 2018. That video can be viewed here:

II. Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did

     I spent the first half of October 2018 researching World War II, the short-lived Nazi-Soviet pact (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), and Hitler vs. Stalin death totals, and I found out some really disturbing things. Most importantly, that the U.S. has been engaging in a 75-year-long propaganda campaign against its own citizens, to make them think that the U.S. was the most important and primary actor in World War II on the Allied side, when it was really the U.S.S.R., which lost 20 to 27 million people.
     The number of deaths attributed to Hitler in Eastern Europe are deliberately downplayed in Western media, in order to get Hitler's numbers lower, and Stalin's numbers higher, than they actually were. I believe that this is being done in order to lead people to think that America single-handedly defeated the Nazis, instead of that it was Stalin's brilliant diplomatic and manufacturing maneuvers which saved the world from Hitler.
     Contrary to popular American belief, America was not the most important victor, nor victim, of the Allied participants in World War II; that title goes to the U.S.S.R. (both because it was attacked before the United States was, and because it suffered between 50 and 75 times as many deaths as the Americans did).
     In a 2011 interview with RussiaToday, British historian Geoffrey Roberts says that "it was primarily the Soviet Union that won the Second World War, made the greatest sacrifices, was the greatest victor of the war. It didn't win the war on its own by any means - it won it in association with Britain, the United States, and other countries - but nevertheless... the Soviet Union was the key to victory over the Nazis in the Second World War." Roberts also concluded that, without American help, the Soviet Union would have eventually won the war by itself; it just would have taken longer. (Note: that interview is available at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U).
     Furthermore, few Americans are aware that American businesses financed the death camps of the Nazis. This occurred through the actions of Nazi financier and industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Brown Brothers Harriman, the Union Banking Corporation, the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, and other agents. Prescott Bush - the patriarch of the Bush American political dynasty - handled Thyssen's American accounts, resulting in the construction of a network of forced labor camps centered in Oswiecim, Poland; which were eventually converted into extermination operations. But we forget about that, and we forget that the Soviet army liberated that same extermination camp; whose Polish name Oswiecim was Germanized to "Auschwitz".

     The consequence of misremembering history in this way, is that we have allowed ourselves to be led to believe that America and the U.K. deserve all the credit for winning World War II.
     Moreover, Hitler is beginning to look good in comparison to Stalin in the eyes of many Americans. Days dedicated to the remembrance of Holocaust victims and victims of fascism - and now, even May Day (which in 2019 occurs on the same day that Holocaust Remembrance Day begins in Israel)- are being perverted by anti-communist opportunists, by being turned into events dedicated to the remembrance of "victims of communism". That's a problem because "victims of communism" is a group of people which would logically include Nazi and fascists collaborators, because they were murdered by communists too.
     Additionally, Stalin, Communism (and socialism, in all their forms), and Vladimir Putin are routinely demonized in the West, as if they were all in the same category, all one and the same, and all equally deserving of the charge of having killed some 80 to 100 million people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
     Ironically, those who pretend that anarcho-communism and totalitarian socialist autocracy are exactly the same thing, are often the same people who enthusiastically admit that infighting amongst leftists is a common cause of lack of socialist resolve in decision-making and in fighting back against fascists. Anti-communists thus acknowledge leftist infighting, while pretending that all leftists are the same.
     Many even claim that the Nazis were socialist simply because they labeled themselves as such (Note: I have addressed this topic thoroughly, in my September 2017 article "Debunking the Top Six Claims that the Nazis Were Socialist"; which can be viewed at the following link: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/09/debunking-top-six-claims-that-nazis.html). The ludicrous idea that the National Socialists were merely nationalist versions of the Soviet Communists, practically reduces World War II to nothing more than a bout of socialist infighting. The idea that the Nazis were socialists, is one of the lies that anti-communists use to deliberately inflate the death tolls of socialist regimes (that is, by adding Nazi victim counts to socialist death tolls).
     If we want the Cold War, and American military belligerence and intervention, to end, then the record regarding U.S. and European relations with the Nazis and the Soviets during World War II must be set straight.

     Stalin perhaps deserves some credit for saving the world from Hitler, so I would not blame anyone for being appreciative of this fact (especially not the 50 to 70 percent of modern Russians who today still view Stalin as an admirable defender of the nation). But on the other hand, Stalin once said that  “Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs”. So even by Stalin's standards, we don't have to be appreciative towards Stalin for defeating the Nazis if we don't want to.
     But even if we are not completely prepared to accept the idea that a world with Stalin and without Hitler is better than a world with Hitler and without Stalin (which is the choice that the people of Europe had to make), we can still examine fairly which of these men actually caused the deaths of more people (whether through direct orders, or through willfully or misguided decisions that caused destruction and affected millions). And that is what I intend to examine throughout the remainder of this essay.

     Many people died at the hands of the Nazis, and during Stalin's regime; there is no doubt about that. Getting a consistent and reliable death total, however, can often be difficult when studying atrocities, or when studying regimes that lasted twelve or thirty years. But why is there such a big discrepancy between the totals usually offered in regards to Stalin and Hitler? Some say that each killed about 20 million, but other sources say that Stalin killed 60 million or more. But what are the facts?
     Hitler is remembered for having killed six million Jews. But he also killed five million people who weren't Jewish in Germany, like Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people. But there were also the nine million German political dissidents, many of whom were Christian. So that's twenty million right there. And then you throw in the military deaths – the Battle of Stalingrad alone saw the death of nearly a million people, and about half a million Soviet troops – and you add the 20 to 27 million Soviet citizens who died during World War II to the Nazis' murders of 20 million people inside Germany, you've got a total of 40 to 47 million killed by the Nazis.

     Some say that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. First of all, that's not conclusively true. Second, do you remember who Stalin was killing? He was killing Nazis. If Stalin was killing Nazis – while cooperating with the U.S. and U.K. against Hitler, no less - then I hope Stalin killed more people, if it means that more Nazis would be dead.
     Some claim that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn estimated, in his book The Gulag Archipelago, that 66.7 million deaths were caused by Stalin. As far as an accurate death total caused by Stalin goes - or even just occuring during Stalin's rule - that number is bogusly inflated, and could only have been arrived at if you got confused and added together either: 1) all deaths caused by Stalin and Hitler put together; 2) all deaths that occurred in the U.S.S.R. during Stalin's 30-year-long regime, whether their death had to do with Stalin or not; and/or 3) all Soviet subjects who ever entered the gulag system once, while reasoning that since they all eventually died, it must have been Stalin's fault. None of these are appropriate ways to arrive at an accurate count of the number of people Stalin killed or ordered killed.
     Only about 830,000 people were formally ordered killed by Stalin. Capital punishment is terrible, but it is not as though none of these executions had any cause. Some people in Poland today still claim that the Katyn Forest Massacre was an act of attempted genocide against the Polish people. To claim that the Katyn Forest Massacre was an act of genocide trivializes the fact that Poland was housing German death camps, and diminishes the ethnic cleansing character of the Holocaust against the Jewish people. That's because the 18,000 Polish officers who were executed had refused to cooperate with Russians after being captured, when doing so would have allowed the Poles and Russians to join forces against the Nazis (although, of course, Poland would have to agree to be a protectorate and satellite of the U.S.S.R., which it eventually did).
     (Additional note on Poland: The Soviet Union may have played a role in the destruction of the Polish government, but it also arguably helped save the Polish people from the hubris of its military command structure, which foolishly thought itself strong enough to fend off the Nazi threat by itself, without Soviet assistance).

     Not every single death that happened in the U.S.S.R. between 1924 and 1953 is attributable to Stalin. The 20 to 27 million deaths of Soviet citizens in World War II are not attributable to Stalin. Some say that they are attributable to Stalin; supposedly for the large number of Red Army troops which Stalin "threw wave after wave of, at the Nazis", owing to Stalin's alleged shortfalls as a military general.
     Well, when your army's main strength is that you have a lot of men, what are you going to do? Resist the urge to "throw your men at them", and instead wait patiently for the enemy to show up at your door? If you expect the Soviet army to have waited for the Nazis to show up at their doorstep, I have some bad news for you: they tried that. Operation Barbarossa happened, the Nazis showed up right outside Moscow, and the Soviets didn't begin to regain territories lost in Operation Barbarossa until after the Nazis had already begun to encircle Moscow.
     The Soviet army was, unfortunately, ill-prepared technologically for the Nazis' onslaught. Those deaths are regrettable and to be mourned, but the fact that these people died fighting for Stalin doesn't mean that Stalin caused their deaths. The blame for their deaths should go to the officers who commanded Nazi troops (or Italian, Romanian, etc.) to shoot at them.

     To believe that the 10 to 20 million Soviets who died of disease, starvation, and natural disasters during Stalin's nearly 30-year-reign are all attributable to Stalin, is equally fallacious. Natural disasters, mechanical errors, distribution inefficiencies (like mass concentrations of wealth), and government failures, can all cause significant increases in rates of starvation, disease, and death. But that doesn't mean that Stalin, or the Soviet government, were capable of saving all their subjects from death, given these many manmade and natural odds against them.
     To suggest that Stalin should have done something more to alleviate the starvation in Ukraine which caused the Holodomor, is to ignore history; and it is to ignore, once again, that Stalin did do something to try to alleviate the starvation; he collectivized farms, confiscated grain, and redistributed it. Stalin did not cause that episode of mass starvation in Ukraine; the famine did. Stalin was trying to fix it. The farmers were making the famine worse; by slaughtering their livestock, and refusing to turn food over to authorities, choosing instead to try to profit off of the desperation of starving people.
     And in case you'd like to criticize Stalin for doing something instead of nothing, Stalin did wait several years before undertaking any direct measures to relieve the effects of the famine.
     To expect a government to be responsible for saving the lives of all its citizens – to the point where you blame whomever is nominally in charge of the government for any and all disasters, manmade and natural alike, that result in people's deaths – is ridiculous. It is to expect government to be able to completely subvert nature to human control. It is to expect government to be as powerful as God, and as much in charge of whether and when we die as God is.

     Historians acknowledge three main sources of mass deaths which occurred under Stalin: 1) deaths from forced collectivization; 2) deaths in the gulags; 3) deaths in purges and show trials.
     Low estimates for deaths from forced collectivization under Stalin was 3 million. The medium estimate is 5 million. The high estimate, by historian John Heidenrich, is 7 million.
     For the gulags, the low estimate is 2.3 million, but John Heidenrich's estimate is 12 million. This wide discrepancy will make a reliable average estimate all but impossible.
     For the purges, John Heidenrich makes a high estimate of 1.2 million killed by Stalin, while low ranges run from 600,000 to 750,000.
     While Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 66.7 million claim is the highest, John Heidenrich's totals come out to 20.2 million, while mid-range estimates have Stalin's death totals at 8 million, and low range estimates are 5.3 million. [Note: Solzhenitsyn's estimate refers to the total number of executions ordered by the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1959].
     The Soviets did not kill sixty million people or more. The population of the Soviet Union increased during Stalin's reign. Maybe Stalin directly or indirectly caused the deaths of 20 million people, maybe that figure is 5 or 8 million; we could probably debate that all day. But this much is for sure: if you're looking for someone who killed 60 million people, then look no further than the fascists. If you add together the 40 to 47 million people killed by the Nazis, to the deaths caused by their allies (Franco in Spain; Mussolini in Italy; Hungary, Romania, and others), it adds up to nearly 60 million dead in Europe at the hands of the fascist, imperialist Axis Powers.
     The 20 to 27 million Soviet citizens who died during World War II – as well as another 8 million Slavs outside of the U.S.S.R. who died – were nearly all attributable to the Nazis, not Stalin.
     Up until 1939, Stalin killed more people than Hitler did, and more quickly. But during the time period that matters most – World War II – it was Hitler who killed more people more quickly. And he also killed more people; at least twice as many people, in fact. If Stalin's death tolls amount to only 5.3 or 8 million, then it's possible that Hitler may have killed even as many as six to ten times as many people as Stalin did.

     If it upsets you that I’m appearing to defend forced labor, and the many deaths that it caused, just remember what the costs would have been - while fighting the Nazis - to allow people to go days or weeks at a time without working.
     First off, they would starve to death, because working was necessary for them to survive, even independently. Remember that survival is the main objective here, which requires both material sustenance and physical protection. And in that spirit, secondly, in the face of impending Nazi invasion, some of these people’s labor would have to benefit the state, and its war effort, if the Soviet citizens were to expect adequate protection by the Red Army, and/or to expect to be able to perform effectively as a soldier in it.
     This idea helps explain why the Soviets treated people who refused to work as if they were Nazi collaborators. People who refused to work were not only harming themselves by avoiding the efforts necessary to be self-sustaining; they were deemed to be effectively cooperating with the Nazis, because they refused to let the product of at least some of their labor go to fund the armament of the nearest armed agency that was willing and able to physically protect them from Nazi aggression (i.e., the army of the U.S.S.R.).
     The deaths which resulted from forced labor which occurred under Soviet control are not horrors of Stalinist totalitarianism; they are sacrifices which should and must always be remembered and mourned. Keep in mind that Stalin embarked upon the Five Year Plan to rapidly industrialize the U.S.S.R. knowing that Germany would eventually find itself in war with Russia, war with itself, or both. Much of the product of people’s labor did indeed end up in the hands of the state, and to some extent that is a betrayal of Marxist principles. However, the strength of the Soviet war machine – technologically flawed though it may well have been – turned out to be the source of the strength and protection of the Soviet people (if we’re talking about the moment it mattered most).
     Whether they liked it or not, people who died from being worked to death under the Soviet regime, gave their lives to the cause of producing enough armaments and produce to help a hundred million Soviets survive in the face of Nazis’ threats of death. The Nazis, whom – by the way – attacked the Soviet Union first; and initiated the conflict in the first place.
     In order to protect large numbers of people from grave threats to life and limb during wartime, it is sometimes necessary for some people to die without wanting to, so that others may live. It’s not something that has an ethical resolution, but then again it’s not something that we ought to expect to be able to resolve ethically.
     Maybe it’s not so crazy to suggest that, if the cause of a war is just, and if people must die in it besides the enemy, the allies who contributed the least to defeating the enemy, are at least an acceptable (if not preferable) loss, compared to the costs we would incur in failing to defeat that enemy.
     [Note: You can read more about my views on forced labor in my articles “Reflection Upon the Use of Forced Labor Camps by Anarchists and Communists”, and “The Gulags Were Less Harsh Than American Prisons Are”, which can be found at the following links: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/02/reflection-upon-use-of-forced-labor.html and http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-gulags-were-less-harsh-than.html

III. How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

     By most any and all measures, what Stalin did to protect his people and hang onto power, was not as bad as – and, in many cases, was both necessary and objectively better – than what Hitler did in order to achieve those same goals for himself.
     Not only did Stalin succeed in commanding his army to occupy most of Berlin and Western Germany, and in forcing a Nazi surrender; he also succeeded in tricking Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which allowed Stalin to lead Hitler into this trap in the first place. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was also known as the “Nazi-Soviet pact” to “carve up Poland” between Germany and Russia.
     However, this pact was not a military alliance (at least not explicitly), although many people believe that it was. The pact was merely an agreement establishing friendly trade, and non-aggression and non-intervention concerning one another's military affairs. Additionally, the idea that any formal, explicit military alliance took place between Hitler and Stalin is false. The only remotely “military” aspect of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, pertained to establishing a state of non-aggression between the two countries, and to preventing each country from working with each other's enemies. The Soviet Army did train German military units; but this stopped in 1933, the year Hitler took power, so the idea that the Soviets provided direct military assistance to the Nazis is also false.

     True; Poland was practically reduced to the status of a Soviet buffer zone against Nazi aggression in the process of its occupation. And true, the boundaries which were delineated in the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement did serve to mark the maximum extent of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. in Polish territory (and, in that sense, allowed the Soviets to move troops in). But this was at least as much a blessing for the Polish people as it was a curse.
     The Polish had recently been at war with each Germany and the Soviet Union, and thus were not initially prepared to accept Soviet orders even if it meant better protection from the Nazis - did benefit, on the whole, from the protection afforded by Soviet occupation.
     What Stalin did, objectively served a more protective and peaceful purpose than what Hitler did.
     We hear horror stories of people sent to work in the cold, far east of Siberia. Why do you think Stalin sent people to Siberia? Yes, to sentence them to several years of harsh labor. But that labor served to support the war effort in part. Additionally, sending people far to the east in Russia, also served the purpose of getting those people physically far away from the front line so the Nazis can't hurt them; to a place where the Nazis couldn't reach them unless they attempted a full-scale invasion of all of Russia. Stalin even authorized the creation of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast region in Siberia. Relocating people to the East was strategic, in the same way that relocating factories had been strategic; protecting them from the Nazis.
     While the Soviet Union's occupation of Poland was not initially welcome, it served not only a “buffer zone” purpose for the Soviets; it allowed the Poles cover from the Nazis. Furthermore, the Soviets protected the Polish people from their own hubristic government, which thought its army capable of protecting against the Nazi armies' advance. They needed the Red Army's help and were ashamed to admit it.

     Don't forget, though; all of this happened immediately after - and as a result of – mass attempts at Nazi appeasement. Not just by the U.K. and France, regarding Czechoslovakia. Nearly every country in Europe attempted to appease the Nazis. The King of Belgium even gave his troops an order to stand down as the Nazis drove through his country, bypassing the Maginot Line in the northeast of France.
     So blame Stalin for bargaining with Hitler if you must; the Soviet Union was the last significant player in World War II to attempt to bargain with Hitler. Moreover, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact allayed Hitler's concerns about a possible Eastern Front building up between Germany and Russia, which allowed Hitler to prepare for his attacks against the U.K. and France.

     Don't get me wrong – Britain and France were American allies, and fought Hitler alongside the U.S. – but agents in Britain and France had both attempted to appease fascists. France had just recently been governed by the fascist Daladier, the racist Churchill made attempts to cooperate with Mussolini and Franco (albeit against Hitler), and Wallis Simpson was eyeing the British throne while at the same time having an affair with Nazi diplomat Joachim von Ribbentrop.
     Americans attempted to appease fascists too. I have already addressed above, the role which American business interests played in the construction of the forced-labor-camps-turned-death-camps in and around Auschwitz. But moreover, American authorities allowed the Nazi-sympathetic German-American Bund to march in Grafton, Wisconsin; and even to hold a rally at Madison Square Garden on February 20th, 1939.
     Franklin D. Roosevelt repeated his “I hate war” slogan that got him elected. At this time, 84% of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the war. The 1938 Evian Conference to address the global refugee crisis (which F.D.R. called for) failed to provide for an adequate accommodation to mass displacement of Jews. Additionally, Roosevelt's mother, his vice president Harry Truman, and his advisor Henry Stimson, were all anti-Semites. Henry Stimson, in fact, advised F.D.R. to refuse to allow a ship full of Jewish refugees, the M.S. St. Louis, to dock on American shores in 1939. They had been sold fraudulent disembarking passes by people in Cuba. Canada accepted some refugees, but 300 of the 900 passengers returned to Nazi-occupied Europe.

     The Americans, the British, the French, and the Soviets could all be said to have attempted either appeasement, non-aggression, and/or friendly trade with Nazi Germany; and/or to have attempted to cooperate with the Nazis' fascist allies, evidently in order to try to work with some fascists to destroy others. But given Germany's size and industrial output, it was inevitable that the Soviet Union would make Germany into its trading partner, at least temporarily (and moreover, the U.S.-German volume of trade was higher than the Soviet-German volume of trade in 1940).
     But also, it was inevitable that Germany and the Soviet Union would go to war with another, after trading peacefully for a time. The large border between Germany and the U.S.S.R. which existed only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact went into effect, allowed Stalin to create a war front where there needed to be one (because Stalin knew that Hitler was up to no good), while before the pact went into effect, there was no border between Germany and the Soviet Union.
     Unfortunately for Poland, however, the creation of a battle front between Germany and the Soviet Union meant that Poland would temporarily disappear from the map. But Poland stood in the way of the Soviet destruction of the Nazis. And fortunately for the Soviet Union and its protectorates (which includes Poland), the Molotov-Ribbentrop allowed Stalin to maintain an air of neutrality concerning Germany's military affairs, while the Soviet Union continued to benefit from Germany's sale of resources to it, which were crucial to the maintenance of the Soviet war machine. Which was essential to the destruction of the Nazis.
     The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact thus allowed the Soviets to buy time to prepare for Hitler's eventual betrayal of the pact. In the meantime, vital industrial operations which could not be allowed to fall into the hands of the Nazis, were moved East. We are told in the West that Stalin was taken off guard by Hitler's betrayal, but it is quite possible that the Molotov-Ribbentrop was an ingenious ploy by Stalin that he was counting on Hitler to eventually betray. Which could allow Stalin to trap him.
     And so, perhaps it was worth it for Stalin to buy his large number of Soviet subjects a little temporary safety, while through little fault of Stalin's own, Hitler would shake the relatively smaller populations of Britain and France like a hornet's nest, in a tragic act of payback for their attempts at appeasement of the Nazis (which were more enthusiastic and consequential than the Soviets', and not intended as tricks). Maybe that was the only way that Western Europe could have been stirred into action, could have resolved to end their appeasement attempts and start fighting, could have accepted Stalin's help despite their fear of Communism, in the name of defeating their mutual enemy, the Nazis.
     Maybe that's the only way that such a united front could ever have been built up against Hitler in the first place. Maybe Stalin knew exactly what he was doing by making the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The “Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up Poland” should not scare us anywhere near as much as the fact that nearly 20 European countries attempted some form of non-aggression, trade, or appeasement policy towards the Nazis and/or their allies. Not just Russia, not just Britain and France, not just America; eighteen or more European countries and the U.S..

     Regarding the aftermath of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Woody Guthrie sang that if he were a Polish farmer, he would have been glad if the Red Army came in. In my opinion, Poland should have agreed to become a protectorate of the U.S.S.R. as soon as possible. Why should it have formed an alliance with the U.K., which was much farther away from Poland than Russia is? From a purely logistical perspective, that arrangement could not have been effective.
     Guthrie also said at the time that Stalin was trying to figure out whether the Nazis or the liberal democracies of Western Europe were going to try to devour the Soviet Union first; and whether Fascism or democratic capitalism was a bigger threat to Communism. After all, they were both equally hostile to the Communists.
     Recently, conservative American viewers of Fox News were wrongly told that the Japanese imperialists who allied themselves with Hitler were “communists”. Americans are told to be fearful of Communists and Nazis, almost as if they were the exact same thing. This, of course, neglects the fact that during the most recent major world war, they were enemies to the death, and also the fact that the conflict between them is continuing; just in other forms.

     Americans are told that Stalin killed on the basis of nationality, just like Hitler. That is not true; Stalin may have ordered killed military officers on the basis of what country they fought for (and refused to stop fighting for when captured), and also prominent people who were leading nationalist uprisings within the Soviet Union, thus undermining it and risking collaboration with the Nazis. But those executions had a purpose; protecting the Soviet people from political influence from the outside world.
     It may seem cruel and totalitarian to us to shield your people from outside political influence, but remember that this occurred at the time of the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Soviet Union was, at that time, surrounded by sixteen different capitalist enemies (in Eastern Europe, Japan and the U.S., as well as neighbors in the Middle East, etc.).
     Outside political influence on the Soviet Union would have meant the collapse of the U.S.S.R., and the deaths of many Soviet subjects as a result. But deaths increase after any regime ends; when the U.S.S.R. collapsed (and submitted to capitalism), caloric intake declined, and alcoholism and suicide rates increased. Additionally, the Soviet Union had a larger population than any other country in Europe at the time (and still does), so there were a lot of people who need protecting; particularly including in comparison to those in Western Europe who were targeted by the Nazis while the Soviets were preparing for the Nazi invasion.
     The deaths of Britons, Frenchmen, Czechs, and others at the hands of the Nazis are regrettable, but the alternative would have been that the Soviets would have had to fight the Nazis on their own. Not that the Soviets wouldn't have won that war eventually; it just might have taken much longer without help from the British, French, and Americans.
     Moreover - without American, British, and French assistance to the defense of the U.S.S.R. - it's possible that those three powers might have even joined the fascist against the Soviets. It may sound dubious, but the British and French handing Czechoslovakia over to Hitler - and other appeasement moves, as well as Churchill's arguably genocidal actions in Bengal and Kenya, and attempts to reach out to Mussolini and Franco, whom were at times allied with Hitler - should suffice as ample evidence showing how far Britain and France were willing to go to keep Hitler happy (or at least for the first year or two of the war).
     And can you imagine what would have happened, if Stalin had tried to demonstrate his resolve against the Nazis, by having the Red Army attack the Nazis first? What makes you so sure that the U.K. and France wouldn't have treated such an attack as an initiation of aggression against the Nazis? Until such an attack by the Soviet Union were to happen (and it didn't), a British-French-Nazi pact would not have been out of the question. That is, provided that the Nazis would have been able to make their case to the British and French that the U.S.S.R. had attacked Germany without provocation.
     But the fact of European appeasement of Nazis, should not be construed to excuse the Americans' relentless self-congratulation for helping to win World War II. That's because this self-congratulation is mainly done to applaud the imperialist, fascistic, pro-capitalist, and anti-communist aims which have been pursued by the United States and the United Kingdom since the very day the Allies celebrated victory over the Nazis.
     Once the Nazis surrendered, Churchill immediately began conspiring to order the killing of Stalin, the hero of World War II who commanded the Red Army to march towards Eastern Germany while Hitler cowered in his bunker contemplating suicide. Stalin, having won World War II almost single-handedly, was reduced right back to persona non grata, the moment that the European front of the war was over.

IV. Post-Script

     To find evidence supporting the above assertions, please visit the following link, to find a list of links that will help illuminate the goals of Stalin, and the worldwide refugee crisis which preceded World War II in the 1940s, and followed the wave of nationalist sentiments which overtook Europe in the 1930s:


(not an original meme)

Based on an Improvised October 18th, 2018 YouTube video
entitled ““Stalin Killed More Than Hitler” Borders on Holocaust Denial”

Edited and Expanded Version Published on April 30th, 2019
Edited and Expanded on May 1st, 2019
Links Added on May 1st, 2019
Edited on May 2nd, 2019
Edited and Expanded on May 10th, 2019

Meme Added on May 10th, 2019

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Partial List of Candidates Running for President in 2020

(?) = expressed interest, and/or formed an exploratory committee, but has not yet formally declared

Republican Party

1. de la Fuente, Roque "Rocky"
2. Hogan, Larry (seemed likely, but not running)
3. Istvan, Zoltan
4. Kasich, John (dropped out)
5. Sanford, Mark (dropped out)
6. Trump, Donald J. (incumbent)
7. Walsh, William Joseph "Joe" (dropped out)
8. Weld, William R. ("Bill") (dropped out)

Democratic Party

1. Abrams, Stacey (seemed likely, but not running)
2. Arth, Michael E. (probably ineligible; born in the United Kingdom)
3. Bennet, Michael (dropped out)
4. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. ("Joe")
5. Bloomberg, Michael (dropped out)
6. Booker, Cory (dropped out)
7. Boyd, Mosie
8. Braun, Harry
9. Brown, Sherrod (dropped out)
10. Bullock, Steve (dropped out)
11. Buttigieg, Pete (dropped out)
12. Castro, Julian (dropped out)
13. deBlasio, Bill (dropped out)
14. Delaney, John (dropped out)
15. Gabbard, Tulsi (dropped out)
16. Gillibrand, Kristen (dropped out)
17. Gleib, Ben
18. Gravel, Michael ("Mike") (dropped out)
19. Greenstein, Mark Stewart
19. Harris, Kamala (dropped out)
20. Hickenlooper, John (dropped out)
21. Horowitz, Ami (dropped out)
22. Inslee, Jay (dropped out)
23. Klobuchar, Amy (dropped out)
24. Messam, Wayne (dropped out)
25. Moulton, Seth (dropped out)
26. Nwadike, Ken, Jr.
27. o'Rourke, Robert Francis ("Beto") (dropped out)
28. Ojeda, Richard, Jr. (dropped out)
29. Patrick, Deval (dropped out)
30. Ryan, Tim (dropped out)
31. Sanders, Bernard ("Bernie") (dropped out)
32. Sestak, Joe (dropped out)
34. Steyer, Tom (dropped out)
35. Swalwell, Eric (dropped out)
36. Warren, Elizabeth (dropped out)
37. Wells, Robby (dropped out)
38. Williamson, Marianne (dropped out)
39. Yang, Andrew (dropped out)

Libertarian Party

1. Abramson, Max (withdrew)
2. Amash, Justin
3. Ardeleanu, Sorinne
4. Armstrong, Ken
5. Behrman, Daniel ("Dan")
6. Berry, Joey
7. Blevins, Kenneth
8. Campbell, Joseph Charles
9. Chafee, Lincoln (withdrew)
10. Cook, M. E. Sergeant, Sr.
11. DePriest, Kyler
12. Dryke, Benjamin T. (declined to run)
13. Dunham, Keenan Wallace
14. Faas, Souraya
15. Faucett, Peyton
16. Gerhardt, Erik
17. Gray, James P.
18. Gray, Phil
19. Hale, Dakota
20. Hill, Jedidiah "Jedi"
21. Hornberger, Jacob
22. Horst, Heather
23. Hurst, William Joseph
24. Jorgenson, Jo
25. Kokesh, Adam
26. Ince, Cecil Anthony Southwest
27. Layton, Ben
28. Leder, Benjamin G. ("Ben")
29. Lee, Kip
30. Lee, Seymour Art
31. Lowe, Donald Eugene
32. Maldonado, Joseph Allen
33. McAfee, John (was rumored, seeking vice presidential nomination instead)
34. Monds, John
35. Peach, Jason Daniel
36. Perry, Darryl
37. Peterson, Austin
38. Reid, Derrick Michael
39. Richey, Steven Allen "Steve"
40. Robb, Samuel Joseph
41. Ruff, Kimberly Margaret ("Kim") (withdrew)
42. Salas, Sandra
43. Seder, Sam (possible)
44. Sibillo, Jason Michael
45. Spivey, Mark
46. Sportsinterviews, Leonard
47. Supreme, Vermin
48. Vohra, Arvin
49. Weaver, Christopher Francis
50. Whipple, Krista Marie
51. Whitney, Mark
52. Wilkerson, Terry
53. Williams, Andy

Learn more about many of the above candidates at the following link:

Green Party

1. Augustson, Alan
2. Desuasido, Ivan-Jan
3. Hawkins, Howie
4. Hunter, Dario
5. Kreml, Bill
6. Lambert, Dennis
7. Manley, Elijah
8. Mesplay, Kent
9. Milnes, Robert
10. Moyowasifza-Curry, Sedinam
11. Nichols, Curt
12. Ogle, James
13. Rolde, David
14. Schiakman, Ian
15. Ventura, Jesse (possible)

Constitution Party
1. Blankenship, Don (nominated)
2. Bradley, Scott
3. Castle, Darrell
4. Copeland, Scott
5. Kraut, Charles

American Free Soil Party
1. Ramos, Enrique
2. Seaman, Adam

American Solidarity Party

1. Carroll, Brian T.
2. Perkins, Joshua
3. Schriner, Joe

Other Parties
1. LaRiva, Gloria (Party for Socialism and Liberation, Peace and Freedom Party, Liberty Union Party)
2. J.R. Myers (Life and Liberty Party)
3. Ben Zion (Transhumanist Party)

Independent Candidates

1. Amash, Justin
2. Charles, Mark
3. Cuban, Mark (said no in an interview, but did not rule it out)
4. Kroell, Ronnie
5. Marks, Christopher "Chris"

Click on the following links to see more candidates for the 2020 presidential election,
including the full list of nearly 700 people who have formally filed to run for president:



Originally Published on April 16th, 2019
Expanded on April 18th and 29th; June 24th;
July 3rd and 22nd; August 26th; September 21st;
 November 8th, 13th, 14th, and 19th; December 3rd, 2019;
January 28th; March 5th and 16th;
April 9th, 13th, and 15th; and May 5th, 2020

Friday, April 12, 2019

Regarding the Surviving Royal Families of Europe

     The Soviet Union and Germany didn't achieve socialism. But fortunately, what they did achieve was throw off their country's royal families:
     - The USSR in 1917-1918,
     - Germany in 1918 when social democrat Friedrich Ebert took over after Wilhelm II died,

     - (and also Greece in 1973).

     I wrote "families", but they were the same family (in both the previous three countries named, and the next seven countries named). Eleven European countries still have monarchies; 1) an absolutist monarchy in the Vatican; 2-4) constitutional monarchies in Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Sweden; and 5-11) seven other constitutional monarchies. Those seven constitutional monarchies are the primary focus of this article.
     Those seven European countries - the U.K./Wales/Scotland (Edinburgh), the Netherlands (through William of Orange, of Danish origin), Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, and Norway - all still have royal families. Sure, they are monarchies which are "limited by a constitutional republic", but the fact that seven European countries' royal families are related ought to concern us. Is  a constitutional republic really enough limitation on a royal family that rules a third of the countries on the continent?

King George V of England (right) with his first cousin Czar Nicholas II of Russia (left).
Both men shared a grandmother, Queen Victoria of England.

     The Russian and English royal families, the German and English royal families, as well as the Spanish and Dutch royal families, have all been intertwined at times. The last German King, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia, was the son of a German king, and Queen Victoria of England. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was the first cousin of King George V of England; they shared a grandmother in Queen Victoria, through Nicholas's Danish mother Dagmar, and George's Danish mother Alexandra (Dagmar's sister).
     Have you ever heard of King Christian IX of Denmark (1818-1906), of the House of Glucksburg (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg)? He was born in Denmark, but moved to Norway, and founded the branch of the Carlist monarchical dynasty that rules most of the surviving European constitutional monarchies.
     King Christian IX is known as the "father-in-law of Europe". His children and grandchildren of King Christian IX have included kings, queens, princes, and princesses of nine countries, six or seven of which still have the same royal family running them (Note: I say "six or seven" because I think the issue of whether the Netherlands should be included, should stay open for debate. That's because the Danish-Dutch-British ties (which the relations of King Wilhelm I of the Netherlands brought to the monarchy) were formed before King Christian was born).
     The countries in which King Christian's direct descendants remain in power today, are the U.K., Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Denmark, and Norway.

     Below is a partial list of the most powerful of Christian's descendants, broken down by country. The first six countries still have Carlist kings descended from Charlemagne and Christian IX. Some names appear twice, in order to reflect the descendants' ties to multiple countries.
     The Netherlands do not appear here, because - to reiterate - the ties between the Danish, Dutch, and British monarchies which were brought to the Carlist royal family by the Dutch King Wilhelm I were formed before King Christian IX of Denmark lived. Wilhelm I of the Netherlands was neither a descendant nor an ancestor of King Christian IX.
     I have also included Greece, Russia, and Germany below. Although the Carlist monarchy has no official power in those countries anymore, I have decided to include them in order to show the full extent of the family's relations in the two countries mentioned at the beginning of the article (i.e., Russia and Germany) as well as Greece (because it abolished the monarchy so recently; in 1973).
     [Note: This is not intended to be a complete list of all descendants of King Christian IX of Denmark; additional research is needed, and may be added below in subsequent edits of this article.]

- United Kingdom:
     - King 
Christian's daughter Queen Alexandra of the U.K., Denmark, etc. (1844-1925)
     - Grandson King George V (1865-1936)
     - Great-grandson King George VI (1895-1952)
     - Great-great-granddaughter Queen Elizabeth II of England (1926-)

- Scotland / Edinburgh:
     - King Christian's great-grandson Philip Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of the United Kingdom (born in Greece to Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)

- Belgium:
     - Phillippe

- Luxembourg:
     - Grand Duke Henri

- Spain:
     - King Felipe VI (1968-)
     - Queen Sofia of Greece and Denmark (mother of King Felipe VI of Spain) (1938-)

- Denmark:
     - Margarethe II
     - King Frederick VII
     - King Christian's daughter Queen Maria Feodorovna, princess of Denmark and Empress of Russia (1844-1925)
     - Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh (born into Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)
     - Queen Sofia of Greece and Denmark (1938-)
- Norway:
     - King Harald V of Norway

- Germany:
     - King Christian's daughter Princess Thyra (had German ties)
     - King Christian's son Valdemar of Denmark (had German ties)

- Russia:
     - Nicholas II
     - King Christian's daughter Queen Maria Feodorovna, princess of Denmark and Empress of Russia (1844-1925)

- Greece:
     - King Christian's son King George I of Greece (1845-1913)
     - King Christian's grandson Prince Andrew of Greece  (1882-1944)
     - King Christian's great-grandson Philip Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of the United Kingdom (born in Greece to Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)
     - Queen Sofia of Greece and Denmark (mother of King Felipe VI of Spain) (1938-)
     - Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh (born in Greece to Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)     - Constantine II
     - Queen Anne-Marie

     By the way...
     All of those countries, in some way, attempted to appease Hitler. Many of those appeasement attempts would have had the effect of preserving their monarchies, and in many cases those attempts were done in order to preserve their monarchies. The King of Belgium even gave troops orders to stand down as the Nazis swept through his country.
     Limiting the monarchy is one thing, but abolishing it is another. One monarchy governing six or ten countries is not sovereignty, and it is certainly not populism, nor democracy, nor liberty. Conservative monarchism is fascism; it is the Divine Right of Kings. And it will not hesitate to feed populaces to fascists.
     Conservative monarchists - most notably Franco, Mussolini, and even Churchill - all attempted to appease and/or cooperate with powers that were more fascist, racist, and brutal than they were themselves. Each made the mistake of thinking that they could work with regimes much more brutal than they.

     It is true that nearly all monarchists are brutal and fascistic, but that does not mean that all fascist or fascistic regimes support monarchies. On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that fascists, and the monarchies with whom they compete for power, won't collaborate when outside forces pressure them to choose sides.
     I hope I have not given the impression that I appreciate the regimes which abolished the monarchy in Germany and Russia, more than I appreciate the abolition of the monarchy in those countries in general. I believe that the U.S.S.R. was a milder replacement for the monarchy in Russia, than the Nazi regime was for the monarchy in Germany.
     Additionally, it was not Hitler who initially replaced the monarchy in Germany; Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia abdicated in 1918, leaving Germany devoid of any kings. The Nazi regime did not take power until 15 years later. If Wilhelm had not abdicated, Hitler may well have had more of an impetus to cooperate with the monarchy and rule in their favor. And in their mutual opposition of the Soviet Union, the Nazis had a natural ally in the countries that wanted to preserve their monarchies. All the Nazis had to do was convince those countries to accept Nazi occupation.

Originally Written and Published on April 12th, 2019

Edited and Expanded between April 30th and May 2nd, 2019

Images Added on April 27th and September 18th, 2019

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Images Pertaining to the Joe Biden Groping Scandal and Pizzagate

Joe Biden Groping Women and Girls,
Touching Men, Kissing Boys, etc.

(The image of Joe Biden with a gun in an elderly woman's mouth
is actually fake, it's Photoshopped; but the others are real)

Author's Notes:

     1. Claims that Biden told 13-year-old Maggie Coons that he was "horny" to be standing near her, have not been verified. He might have said "honored".

     2. There exists an image of Biden with his hand on Stephanie Carter's breast, but it is a Photoshop.

     3. There is an image of Biden shaking hands, which is alleged to be the original image, on which a Photoshop of Biden with his hand on a baby's crotch was supposedly based. But the image of Biden with his hand on the baby's crotch is real, and it is the handshake image which was cropped out of the crotch-grabbing photo (which was the original, real image).

Images Pertaining to Marina Abramovic and John Podesta

Images Pertaining to James Alefantis, John and Tony Podesta, and Pizzagate

Guides to Pedophile Symbolism and Code Phrases

None of the images above were created by the author of this blog

Read and watch more about my theories about Pizzagate,
 and other related scandals and sex scandals,
at the following link:

See also, my video about Biden's worst instances of groping children:

Posted on April 3rd, 2019

Images collected between November 2016 and April 2019
Images Added on April 16th and June 7th, 2019

Link Added on May 31st, 2019